Assault of Bicyclists Prevention Act gets Nov 2nd hearing

On Nov 2nd, CM Mendelsohn and the Committee on the Judiciary will host a public hearing on Enforcement of Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Bill 19-475, Assault of Bicyclists Prevention Act of 2011.

Those who wish to testify should contact Ms. Jessica Jacobs, Legislative Counsel, at (202) 724-8038, by fax at (202) 724-6664, or via e-mail at jjacobs@dccouncil.us and provide their name, address, telephone number, organizational affiliation and title (if any) by close of business Monday, October 31, 2011.

In the District of Columbia it is already illegal to use a vehicle to threaten and assault bicyclists. You can go to jail for such behavior.

No. No you really can't. You can hit someone on purpose, have them record it and walk away without so much as a ticket. You can hit a cyclist on purpose, be charged, have the charges reduced, leave town, have the charges dismissed and then later get hired in DC's Summer Youth Employment Program (true story). But one thing you can't do is go to jail. No one - and I mean no one - in the history of this fine city has ever gone to jail for a crime like this. I'm sure of it.

You can also be sued.

You can, but the hurdle is so high that almost no one ever is. It's very difficult to get a lawyer in this situation.

Shane Farthing does a great job of explaining the legal aspecs of the law

It is true that there is an existing civil tort cause of action. However, like most torts, the ability to secure legal representation to bring such a case depends–due to the contingency fee system–on the extent of the injury rather than the egregiousness of the conduct. This law will allow egregious conduct be to be addressed in civil court by changing the economic incentive for attorneys to represent assaulted cyclists.

It is true that the fee-shifting is relatively uncommon, but fee-shifting is an available mechanism that is frequently used in cases where injunctive relief is sought. Roadway assault cases like those at issue here–in which the attacks and harassment are often enabled by the inherent vulnerability of the bicyclist as compared to the motorist–have some interesting parallels to the circumstances that led to the body of civil rights law, where such fee-shifting is most common. Certainly the situations are not the same. It would be a stretch to argue that cyclists, as a group, fit the traditional definition of a protected class. But cyclists are, in the context of the roadway, inherently vulnerable, and it is that vulnerability–combined with an element of minority–that underlies and justifies the civil rights-style remedy proposed.

Chuck goes on

Under their proposal if a motorist assaults me as a pedestrian and you on a bike, I pay my attorney but the motorist pays yours. Does that seem fair?

No, but pedestrians aren't assaulted by drivers the way that cyclists are. Can Thies find an example? And this is a red herring. WABA's not saying that pedestrians are unworthy of this kind of protection, just that they don't need it - and I suspect WABA would be fine if the law wound up protecting both groups in the same way.

Thies resorts to exaggeration (this will "upend our legal system") and the slippery slope argument ("Will the Council designate bicyclists a protected class? Or perhaps an endangered species?"). Both of which are, like the idea that gay marriage will open the door for incest, intellectually bankrupt.

No one questions the dangers associated with riding a bike in traffic. Crossing the street as a pedestrian is also dangerous. Attending an NFL game in Philadelphia decked out in Redskins attire is risky, too.

Oh, is that a joke. If so, it is well-placed because people being run over by cars is hysterical. [BTW, I'd love to see Thies cite one case of a Redskin being assaulted by Eagles fans in Philadelphia. Doesn't happen].

Yes, the behavior of the driver in the YouTube video is reprehensible. But no, we do not need new laws that create incentive for lawsuits and do nothing to further protect people.

Clearly we do, since the driver will suffer no consequences. How does that protect people? Having drivers get sued, and lose, in these kinds of cases will protect cyclists. At the very least, from those very drivers.

If WABA wants to have a discussion about new bike laws, I have an idea: require bicyclists to purchase liability insurance. If a motor vehicle injures you, insurance mandated by law covers medical costs and perhaps more.

So...cyclists should pay to protect themselves from bad behavior by drivers? Isn't that a "victim pays" system? Is that what Thies supports? If a cyclist is at fault they pay, and if they aren't at fault, their insurance - which they paid for - pays. Hooray Justice!

Why should bicyclists, who use public roadways and sidewalks, be immune from insurance requirements?

Because their potential to cause property damage or injury is so very much lower than a drivers. Does Thies really think 6-year-olds need liability insurance to bike to school?

Driving a motor vehicle on public roads is a privilege, not a right. Maybe we need to reconsider whether the same standard should be applied to bikes?

OK, I reconsidered and the answer is no. Driving is a privilege because it is so much more dangerous. That's why we don't let 6-year-olds drive to school.

Who among bicyclists wants to have that conversation?

I do. Name the time and place.

How about the biker who knocked my then-pregnant wife to the ground?

I suspect they're sorry. Especially since I'm sure you sued his pants off right?

Or the one who would have surely injured my young son had I not pulled him from imminent disaster?

OK...you're grasping at straws now. You're angry about the cyclist who didn't crash into your son?

Chuck likes to throw bombs, then retort with a non-sequitur. His tweets last night strangely focus on the anti-"American"-ness of pushing this law.

He's a political consultant, so Chuck obviously is very cognizant of the science and art of 'framing' an argument. By pushing the meme that this law will damage American judicial precedent, he impugns those in favor of it as non-patriotic, as less American than he for opposing it.

An insurance program for cyclists is worth looking into. Administratively, I'd say fund it with the gas tax, parking tax, etc. Maybe limit coverage to cases where victim has no fault.

Contributory negligence doctrine creates something close to a no-fault system when most accidents have mutual fault. Alterntive to repealing doctrine is to have insurance cover the costs.

Most drivers have inadequate insurance to cover serious damages. So on the one hand: Most cases are to small to be worth brining, and on the other hand, most trult tragic cases that are large enough to bring involve defendancts who can pay for some (but not all) of the damages.

The class of automobile drivers should logically pay for the expected damages to cyclists--but it may be most efficient to simply have drives fund the insurance necessary to cover damages rather than have alot of individual insurance programs.

You have clearly never attended an Eagles game. There really are several documented instances of assault against Redskins fans at the stadium there, including one hospitalization. That's why they have a police substation there. So he gets a half point that joke.

As Jim T hinted at and WC surprisingly left out, the contributory negligence law has already created a defacto protected class- only it's drivers who can hit cyclists and then park their SUV in the legal loophole that has too often left cyclists footing the bill.

I suspect Chuck doesn't want to have that conversation, though cyclists certainly do.

Also, he's confusing how liability insurance works. If you have it, it covers you when you hit someone, not when they hit you. Then their insurance is supposed to foot the bill.

I'd support a voluntary option (certainly not mandatory) for liability insurance for bicycles, but it doesn't exist, and insurance companies aren't interested in offering it. Yet another example of where cyclists are legally left out to dry.

I'm an Eagles fan and have been to a few games. I've seen people jokingly threatened or yelled at, but never actually attacked. I'm sure that on occasion fights between fans break out, but my guess is that both sides probably are culpable.

Most cyclists are covered for liability under their auto insurance, according to Mrs. Washcycle.

Some fans are like grenades. They're going to go off and hit someone near them - and they don't discriminate. There might be some greater chance that it's an opposing team's fans, but I've seen plenty of fights between two Eagles fans.

From the wikipedia entry on Redskins mascot "Chief Zee":
"In 1983, Chief Zee attended a game against the Eagles at Veterans Stadium. While at the game, he was attacked by Eagles fans angry at their team's 10-point loss to the Redskins - the fans broke his leg, tore off his original costume, and left him hospitalized."

I'd support a voluntary option (certainly not mandatory) for liability insurance for bicycles, but it doesn't exist, and insurance companies aren't interested in offering it. Yet another example of where cyclists are legally left out to dry.

You can get such coverage from any Homeowner's, Codo or Renter's insurance policy. I have 500K of Liability coverage for only $300/yr.

$300/year is not bad. Over 30 years (a rough estimate of a lifetime of comuting by bike, that's $9,000). If your odds of causing a serious accident are 1/200 over that lifetime, then as long as you think your expected liability is less than $900,000, you're better off self-insuring.*

* All numbers but the first totally made up. And your bank account may at any given time be "diddly".

His experience with his pregnant wife and infant child are not equal to what cyclists are seeking protection/justice from.

Cyclists are seeking justice in situations like the ones that occur to me on a regular basis: riding in my lane, driver passes and yells at me to f'ing get out of the road, within 1 minute and at the next red light I attempt to pass the idling driver, he swerves his car as I pass in an attempt to hit me or run me off the road.

The driver threatens me and then later follows with a purposeful assault.

I doubt his pregnant wife was threatened with violence for being pregnant, and then a couple of minutes later actually assaulted for being pregnant.

Cyclists aren't seeking this legislation for accidents, we're seeking it for assaults.

I do think as a matter of prudence cyclists-especially those with families-should carry adequate insurance. That's for the purpose of protecting themselves and their loved ones, though--there's no evidence that uninsured cyclist-caused damage and injuries have ever been an issue beyond the occasional and extremely rare instance (frankly, I don't know of any). Good policy is not made by imposing expensive requirements as palliatives for extremely rare occurrences.